Publication trends in cochlear implantation outcome measures

IF 0.3 Q4 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
P. Sethukumar, N. Amin, A. Hall, R. Nash
{"title":"Publication trends in cochlear implantation outcome measures","authors":"P. Sethukumar, N. Amin, A. Hall, R. Nash","doi":"10.1080/21695717.2022.2083787","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective To review trends in outcome domains and instruments reported by modern researchers in 100 consecutively published articles on cochlear implantation (CI). Methods Retrograde literature review of Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases of 100 consecutive scientific publications. Outcome domains and instruments from each included study were extracted in categories: speech perception, speech development, sound perception, electrophysiological and quality of life. Results 61 studies met inclusion criteria. 84 outcome measures were reported in total across all 61 studies. Across the 42 studies reporting speech perception, 31 different measures were utilised. Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) and Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) were the most frequently used instruments. Nine studies reported speech development, with 11 different instruments used. Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) was most frequently used instrument. Sixteen studies reported on sound perception, with Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) being the most frequently used instrument. Eleven studies reported six different electrophysiological instruments, with Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) being used most frequently used. Two studies measured quality of life outcome, with three instruments used. Conclusion This study confirms a large degree of CI outcome heterogeneity within the peer reviewed literature. Determining consensus on core outcome domains and recommended instruments may increase the future impact and generalisability of work undertaken.","PeriodicalId":43765,"journal":{"name":"Hearing Balance and Communication","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hearing Balance and Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21695717.2022.2083787","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Objective To review trends in outcome domains and instruments reported by modern researchers in 100 consecutively published articles on cochlear implantation (CI). Methods Retrograde literature review of Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases of 100 consecutive scientific publications. Outcome domains and instruments from each included study were extracted in categories: speech perception, speech development, sound perception, electrophysiological and quality of life. Results 61 studies met inclusion criteria. 84 outcome measures were reported in total across all 61 studies. Across the 42 studies reporting speech perception, 31 different measures were utilised. Categories of Auditory Performance (CAP) and Consonant Nucleus Consonant (CNC) were the most frequently used instruments. Nine studies reported speech development, with 11 different instruments used. Speech Intelligibility Rating (SIR) was most frequently used instrument. Sixteen studies reported on sound perception, with Pure Tone Audiometry (PTA) being the most frequently used instrument. Eleven studies reported six different electrophysiological instruments, with Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) being used most frequently used. Two studies measured quality of life outcome, with three instruments used. Conclusion This study confirms a large degree of CI outcome heterogeneity within the peer reviewed literature. Determining consensus on core outcome domains and recommended instruments may increase the future impact and generalisability of work undertaken.
关于人工耳蜗植入结果测量的出版物趋势
摘要目的回顾100篇连续发表的关于人工耳蜗植入(CI)的文章中,现代研究者报道的结果域和仪器的发展趋势。方法对Medline、EMBASE和Cochrane数据库中连续发表的100篇文献进行回顾性分析。从每个纳入的研究中提取结果域和工具,分类为:语音感知、语音发展、声音感知、电生理和生活质量。结果61项研究符合纳入标准。在所有61项研究中总共报告了84项结果测量。在42项关于语言感知的研究中,使用了31种不同的测量方法。听力表现分类(CAP)和辅音核辅音(CNC)是使用频率最高的仪器。9项研究报告了语言发展,使用了11种不同的仪器。语音清晰度评分(SIR)是最常用的测量工具。16项关于声音感知的研究报道,其中最常用的仪器是纯音测听(PTA)。11项研究报告了6种不同的电生理仪器,其中听觉脑干反应(ABR)是最常用的。两项研究用三种仪器测量了生活质量。结论:本研究证实了同行评议文献中CI结果存在很大程度的异质性。就核心成果领域和建议的文书确定协商一致意见,可增加所开展工作的未来影响和普遍性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Hearing Balance and Communication
Hearing Balance and Communication AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信